I've implemented a few tactics to place my images higher in the DT search engine

Ah? Let me guess. Adding "sexy" to the tags and replace "fuselage" by "body" ;-)

LO is grinding towards a halt for me. haven't had a sale there since 9 October. Actually, I hardly have views there anymore. I've had twice as many views at Snapvillage, still in beta, in two months as at LO in a year.

Actually, my earnings at Featurepics are four times those at LO, and FP isn't exactly the Speedy Gonzales of this business.

The fact that some have good sales there while others have next to none, makes me suspicious. Since I'm selling well at other agencies, the reason must be in their search engine and the way it promotes photos.

Sorry to say, but for me, LO sucks big time.

Well...   I'm stopping short of that.... but I figure sooner or later I have to wake up and smell the coffee and assume it's me and my folio sucks with LO customers.

I open up a bag of mixed emotions when I read the LO threads.  Some folks... two, three and more cashouts... I'm sure the  Uber-shops have much more than that....   and then there are the rest of us with little to no..... views even.   I agree that the customer bases will vary site to site...  but when I'm running comparable sales on comparable folio's across the board.... and zippo at LO...       Is it that LO's customer porfile is  THAT MUCH different?  I find that hard to believe. 

I'm still in there for awhile longer.  I've been listening to Bry and the gang for over a year now.... to hang in , hang in... soon, soon... ....  I'm just starting to wonder...  when that might be.   Will it be the new image?    we'll see....             ............... I'm hanging guys..... my fingers are hurtin, but I'm still hangin a while longer......     =tom   

P.S.  I've got 71 tokens sitting here... what the heck can I do with them?  I don't buy pix!  How about I get to cash them in to bring me closer to a sideshow???

Am I the only one who hope LO falls flat on it's arse.

You can't fall if you're lying down   

I don't get LO, you have companies like Fotolia and Albumo who were also fairly late to the Microstock party, who pay contirbutors to submit their photos, offer generous commissions (Fotolia a sliding scale, and Albumo 50%). You also have a majority of the other Microstock's paying 50% commission, and along comes LO and offers an insulting 30% and then devises a plan to charge contributors for exposure in their side show. Am I the only one who hope LO falls flat on it's arse.

As i recall, FT and AL only paid for uploading in a specific goal to get a ton of images... at LO's beginning, they were flooded with uploads and people were complaining about the inspection time. If you were LO, would you pay for uploads in that situation?

You're missing the point of the sideshow in my opinion. It is to get your images more exposure to the customers - imagine what would happen if IS would let people pay to get in the first page of the best match! People would jump all over it! I know i would (and the 'buying gang' has proven that as well). I've been able to put images in the sideshow for about a week and i've been rewarded already with my first sideshow download and the commission was very nice indeed.

The sideshow is working (i'm not the only one who's saying that).

Oh, and everyone complains about LO's 30% - yet the market leader is still only paying 20% to newbies.

(disclaimer - yes i am the forum moderator at LO but i do have my own mind)

You're missing the point of the sideshow in my opinion. It is to get your images more exposure to the customers - imagine what would happen if IS would let people pay to get in the first page of the best match! People would jump all over it! I know i would (and the 'buying gang' has proven that as well). I've been able to put images in the sideshow for about a week and i've been rewarded already with my first sideshow download and the commission was very nice indeed.

Sorry, but I whole-heartedly disagree with this sentiment.  I think that the sideshow is a horrible idea.  Yes, it might benefit some contributors by giving them higher royalties, but it only benefits them at the disadvantage of other contributors and it is a slippery-slope to what can really happen in this industry.

First, the images that are in the sideshow are marketed as "midstock".  But in reality they are just the same old microstock images with a different label.    Almost all of the images in the sideshow can be found on other microstock sites at much lower prices.  What type of message does that give the buyer?

Second, the idea of a contributor having to pay for placement of images is where this idea has really derailed.  It has started a horrible trend that will (unfortunately) probably continue with other sites.

Imagine that another site allows you to "buy" placement in the Best Match algorithm.  At first it might start out as a low fixed cost, but eventually it will turn into a bidding system where the highest bidder gets the top placement.

As contributors we should be against any system that puts us at a disadvantage (as a majority).  While a small minority may profit from a system like this, in my opinion it is no better than what the buying-gangs and ratings-gangs are up to (trying to get better placement in the Best Match).  In other words, it is just legalized gaming.  When contributors figure out a way to game the system on their own, they are branded as fugitives.  But when a stock site legalizes this sort of behaviour, it is called brilliant.  Go figure.

Sidebar on the Sideshow:  If the system that LO put into place (the Sideshow) was truly about "midstock" photos, then I would be all for it.  In other words, if the images that were in the sideshow were not found on other microstock sites, then it would make sense to me (since the term "midstock" would apply better in that case).  But the current scheme allows members that have passed a certain level to take their already-approved microstock images and turn them into "midstock" images.  So the images that are in the Sidebar are just glorified microstock images.  To me, that is lying to the buyer and is just plain wrong.

First, the images that are in the sideshow are marketed as "midstock".  But in reality they are just the same old microstock images with a different label. Almost all of the images in the sideshow can be found on other microstock sites at much lower prices.  What type of message does that give the buyer?

Gee, what message does a buyer get when they can buy gasoline at one station at 2.95/gal and another has it for 2.75? Gee, i can get coffee at any quickstop for $1 but i can go to starbucks and get coffee for $4 -- sure, buyers can shop around looking for the same image at a lower price point if they want, but in most cases they don't - they see what they need and if the price is right they buy it.

And how could anyone possibly define any difference between a midstock image and a microstock image? What's really the difference between starbucks coffee and stuff i can buy for 1/4 the price? (I don't drink coffee and i'm sure someone will tell me there's a difference, but gee, it can't be worth 4x the price - it is all about the atmosphere!)

Second, the idea of a contributor having to pay for placement of images is where this idea has really derailed.  It has started a horrible trend that will (unfortunately) probably continue with other sites.

Imagine that another site allows you to "buy" placement in the Best Match algorithm.  At first it might start out as a low fixed cost, but eventually it will turn into a bidding system where the highest bidder gets the top placement.

As contributors we should be against any system that puts us at a disadvantage (as a majority).  While a small minority may profit from a system like this, in my opinion it is no better than what the buying-gangs and ratings-gangs are up to (trying to get better placement in the Best Match).  In other words, it is just legalized gaming.  When contributors figure out a way to game the system on their own, they are branded as fugitives.  But when a stock site legalizes this sort of behaviour, it is called brilliant.  Go figure.

I guess google is insane for allowing advertisers to pay more for placement in the google ads on the sidebar of their search? It puts other advertisers at a disadvantage so they should be ashamed (sarcasm)

By the way, at IS, i can somewhat buy better placement in the best match search by being exclusive. At FT, (if i'm not mistaken) i can get better placement by having sold xxxx photos. Other sites have similar functions too i believe. Granted it isn't paying $ for placement, but it is a way of 'gaming' the system.

EVERYONE is always looking for ways to get their product in front of the customers hoping for a sale, that is the way business works. Why should this business be any different? With millions of images in the libraries of current stock sites, the best match searches are in fact making or breaking contributors. It was different a year ago when every image had a better chance of being seen, but with the number of photos literally doubling in the last year, how is the customer to find my stuff? It will only get worse as time goes on and more and more images fill up the libraries.

And why shouldn't i be able to highlight some of my better images? And if that service is available, why shouldn't the stock site be able to make a little $ off of me? It is called business.

And, if i'm not mistaken, there are several sites out there that allow the photographers set their own prices... so they can put an image on one site and it sells for a buck but on another, the photog can price it at $5 if they want - is that fair to the buyers?

Sorry, but i feel your arguments against this don't hold water.

Quote from: StockManiac on November 27, 2007, 07:01

First, the images that are in the sideshow are marketed as "midstock".  But in reality they are just the same old microstock images with a different label. Almost all of the images in the sideshow can be found on other microstock sites at much lower prices.  What type of message does that give the buyer?

Gee, what message does a buyer get when they can buy gasoline at one station at 2.95/gal and another has it for 2.75? Gee, i can get coffee at any quickstop for $1 but i can go to starbucks and get coffee for $4 -- sure, buyers can shop around looking for the same image at a lower price point if they want, but in most cases they don't - they see what they need and if the price is right they buy it.

And how could anyone possibly define any difference between a midstock image and a microstock image? What's really the difference between starbucks coffee and stuff i can buy for 1/4 the price? (I don't drink coffee and i'm sure someone will tell me there's a difference, but gee, it can't be worth 4x the price - it is all about the atmosphere!)

Sorry, but there are a few things that you forgot in your analogy.

First, the difference in pricing is much more pronounced.  If the difference was only 0.20 (as in your gas price analogy), then there would be less of a problem.  But the truth is that it is more like buying gas for $1 at one gas station vs. buying gas for $10 at another gas station just down the block.  If you do a search, you will see that many of the images in the Sideshow start at $10 for a measly blog size.  The pricing then goes up from there.  So a buyer could be paying $100 or more for an XLarge size, when they could be getting the same image on another site for $10 or less.

Second, Starbucks coffee has a different formula than other coffees, thus the reason for the higher price.  The reason Starbucks does so well is because they have good coffee.  If the same Starbucks coffee was available at $1 at one store and $4 at another store down the street, I'm sure there would be complaints from the customers.  Like I said, the images that are in the Sideshow are the SAME images that were previously NOT in the Sideshow.  They are also the SAME images that are available at other microstock sites which are just a mouse click away (in the majority of cases).  There is no difference between the images.  If there was a difference between the images in the Sideshow and images available elsewhere, then I would think that would be fine (because then the images would have a valid reason to be charged at a higher rate).

So, yes, I do think that it a slap in the face to the buyers.  And when buyers catch on to this switch-and-bait tactic, I guarantee that it will be the last sale from them at LO.

Quote from: StockManiac on November 27, 2007, 09:02

So, yes, I do think that it a slap in the face to the buyers.  And when buyers catch on to this switch-and-bait tactic, I guarantee that it will be the last sale from them at LO.

Come on... bait and switch? Where is there any deception going on? the buyer can plainly see what the prices are and they aren't being mislead in any way shape or form.

You cannot tell me that Starbucks coffee is 4 times (or more) better formula than any other coffee. It is all about believing you're getting better coffee. It is smoke and mirrors. A quick search on google shows me that there are plenty of opinions out there and everyone has one and Starbucks rarely wins the polls. "different formula" yea right.

well although i don't agree with stockmaniac totally, he does make a valid point... just not sure i agree with it...

His point was that the star bucks coffee isn't sold at two different price points in different stores side by side.

If the sideshow had exclusive images, it would be like starbucks.  Basically the same images - except different ones... maybe a little better (matter of opinion), sold at a premium.... this stockmaniac thought was fine.

Having the same images in the sideshow sold at a higher price at the same time as they are sold for cheap on another site is what stockmaniac didn't like - and what starbucks doesn't do.

by the way, it took me less than 5 minutes to find that example in my post above... so it isn't like that is a rarity.

ETA: here's the same image on IS for $2 for the 'small' size
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/hair/hair_colour/brunette_hair/1833880_sexy_glamour_girl.php?id=1833880

so there's 3 different price points if the buyer wants to search around. So how can DT get away with asking $5 for it? There have been 38 buys for it over the first 100 (when i believe the price went up).

well although i don't agree with stockmaniac totally, he does make a valid point... just not sure i agree with it...

His point was that the star bucks coffee isn't sold at two different price points in different stores side by side.

If the sideshow had exclusive images, it would be like starbucks.  Basically the same images - except different ones... maybe a little better (matter of opinion), sold at a premium.... this stockmaniac thought was fine.

Having the same images in the sideshow sold at a higher price at the same time as they are sold for cheap on another site is what stockmaniac didn't like - and what starbucks doesn't do.

Ok, so my analogy of Starbucks sucks... my post of a few minutes ago gives an exact example of the same thing going on at DT that he's complaining about happening at LO... and nobody's complaining about DT.

perhaps it comes down to what sort of pricing you decide to use in the sideshow.

I have been putting my sideshow images in at 5 credits for small.  Probably a bit more than dreamstime sells them for after 100 sales, but not too much.

However if i were to put those images in at 100 credits... perhaps there would be a bit more of a discrepancy.

Quote from: StockManiac on November 27, 2007, 09:02

Like I said, the images that are in the Sideshow are the SAME images that were previously NOT in the Sideshow.  They are also the SAME images that are available at other microstock sites which are just a mouse click away (in the majority of cases).  There is no difference between the images.  If there was a difference between the images in the Sideshow and images available elsewhere, then I would think that would be fine (because then the images would have a valid reason to be charged at a higher rate).

Buyers are not being deceived at LO. Prices are right in front of them and yet they're buying.
.
.
Dreamstime.com has pricing set up such that when a photo is downloaded more than 100 times, then the price automatically goes up - even if the image is on another site at a lower price. Is that "baiting and switching" a user?

You are right Maunger. This kind of thing is impossible at LO... LO's best seller have 42 downloads

OK, let's compare pricing on the various agencies.
On LO, the prices range from 20 to 400 credits!  So the smallest size (< 0.5 MP) goes for 20 credits.  You could buy the largest size (> 16 MP) at IS (the most expensive agency) and still go get yourself a coffee at Starbucks to boot!

If I was a buyer and ended up buying an image for 400 credits at LO, and then found out that I could have gotten the same image for between 5 and 15 credits, I would be pretty pissed.

How can LO call that image "midstock", when it is obviously microstock on all of the other sites?  How can LO justify charging so much for that image when the exact same image can be found for 10-20x less on all of the other sites?

Well, you completely ignored my point of previous posts and that's what i expected. I gave you a scenario that is almost identical to the thing you're upset about with LO, but you managed to try to twist it another way. It seems to me you have some kind of issue with LO and no matter what is said, they will just be the bad guy.

Why aren't you upset that DT is charging 5x for the image i showed you than what FT is charging for the same image??? Would a DT customer who bought that be mad that they could have gotten it for 20% of the price they could have paid on FT?

The photo you've picked out was priced by the photographer. He/she decided to ask the price range you pointed out. They could have picked a lower price but that is the price that they've decided they want when purchased thru LO. Why don't you ask them why they are doing it that way?

Maybe the buyers will run away from that image on LO and go searching other places (if they even happen to know of the other sites)... maybe this photographer has priced their image too high. Maybe not.

You're beating your head against the same issue that happens with buyers for any product. What do you do when you buy something in one store and find it for a lower price in another? Happens every day.

Why aren't buyers running away from Getty full steam? Heck they're paying $500 for images that they could find similar and better over on IS for $10?

The market is full of inconsistencies and this is nothing that is specific to LO or any other MS site. I've shown you how other sites do something similar so it isn't just LO you should be mad at.